Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1887-09-22

AnJast Spies.
There was another buzz, followed by the
rush of correspondents to doors. When
silence was restored, Justice Mulkey made
few remarks, saying while not wanting
to go ON record as agreeing with all the
court had said in the record, he thought it
remarkable in so large a document there
were so few errors, and what errors there
were did not affect the case in any vital
point. Chief Justice Sheldon then an
nounced the day of execution, and the
bulky opinion was handed down to the
clerk.
OTTowA, ILL.,, Sept. 1.-THE opinion of
the court sustains every point which was
argued by the prosecution. 1t is docu-
ment of between forty thousand and fifty
thousand words. Judge Magruder was
the author. The date of the execution
was not decided upon until this morning
before assembling of the court. Last
night the document was finally discussed
and approved, but some of the judges
Were favorable for extending the date of
the execution until January. The MAORI
ty held that in view of the long period
which had elapsed since the crime was
committed, justice demanded that the law
should be enforced without any more de-
lay than necessary to prepare the souls of
the prisoners for the final event. This
reasoning prevailed.
1t was preternaturally solemn moment
III the court ,and all the judges were affect
ed with the solemnity of the proceedings.
Within a few minutes all except Sheldon
had left the bench and had not reappeared
until adjournment for dinner. Whether
Magruder, the Chicago member of the
court, was selected by lot or rotation to
write the opinion is not known. The duty
generally falls to the justices by rotation,
but it is believed that this course was not
followed in the present case, but that
Magruder was selected because of his con-
snection with the district where the crime
was committed.
Judge Mulky's remarks were as fol-
lows:
at is not my intention to offer sep
arate opinion, as should have done. l de-
sire to avail myself of this occasion to say
that while I concur in the conclusion
reached, and also in the general views en-
tered in the opinion filed, do not wish to
be understood as holding that the record
, is free from error, for l do not
think it is. / am, nevertheless, of
the opinion that none of the errors
tcemp1ained of are of such serious charac-
ter as TO require reversal of Judgment.
In view of the number of defendants on
trial, the great length of time consumed
in the trial, the vast amount of testimony
offered and passed upon by the court, and
the almost numberless rulings the court
wasrequired to make, the wonderment to
me is that errors were not more numerous
and of more serious character.
sin short, after having fully examined
the record and given the questions arising
on it my very best thought, with an earn
est and conscientious effort to do my
sxhole duty, 1 am fully satisfied that the
opinion reached vindicates the law and
does complete justice between the people
and the defendants, fully warranted by
the law and the evidence"
OTTAWA, ILL.,, Sept. 14-The opinion of
the Supreme Court as delivered by JUS
tice Magruder states that the case came
before the court by writ of error to the
Criminal. Court of Cook County. The
plaintiffs in error were tried for murder
of Matthias J. began, on May 1886, in
the city of Chicago. and on August 20,
1856 the jury found verdict against
them.
Here follows a statement of the Hay
market tragedy, including details of the
throwing among the policemen assembled
on the square of dynamite bomb.] The
opinion says:
at is undisputed that the bomb was
thrown. 1t is conceded that no one of the
defendants threw the bomb with his own
hands. The plaintiffs in error are charged
with being accessories before the fact.'
The court then proceeds to examine the
sixty-nine counts in the indictment. Some
of the counts charge that the defendants
being present, aided, abetted and assisted
in the throwing of the bomb; others, that
not being present, aiding, abetting or as
sisting, they advised, encouraged, aided
and abetted such throwing. Some OF the
counts charge that said defendants adj
vised, encouraged. aided and Allotted one
Rudolph Schnaubelt in the preparation of
the crime; others that they advised, en-
couraged, aided and abetted an unknown
person in the preparation thereof.
The Illinois statute, which defines an
accessory as he who stands by and aids
and abets, and which considers such ac-
cessory as principal, to be punished ac-
cordingly, Is quoted, and then the opin-
ion goes on TO state that if therefore the
defendants, advised, encouraged, aided
or allotted the killing of began, they are
as guilty as though they took his life
with their own hands. Ii any of them
stood by and aided, abetted or assisted in
the throwing of the bomb, those of them
who did so are as guilty as though they
threw it themselves.
The questions which present themselves
are these: Did the defendants have 6
common purpose or design to advise, en-
courage, aid or abet the murder of the
policeman? Did they combine together
with others with view to carrying thai
purpose or design into effect: Did they, Oh
either, or any of them, do such acts OF
make such declarations in furtherance OF
the common purpose or design, as oio
actually have the effect of encouraging
aiding or abetting the crime in question:
To solve these questions, the court pro
.ceeded to make a thorough examination
of the evidence as presented in tie Crimi-
nal Court in Chicago. The first part ol
the evidence examined by the Supreme
Court was that in relation to the making
of the bomb that killed Degan, and it was
ascertained that there were four charac'
teristics of this bomb. viz: l. 1t was
round. 2. 1t was exploded by means OF
protective fuse. 3. The shell of the bomt